Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-14


many other respects before mentioned,
not important to repeat.
The ownership of lands in Texas by
alien and foreign natural citiZ5ns was of
itself question of general debate and
doubtful propEiety by the founders OF the
republic when the policy OF the govern
ment wes planned by patriots whose
craftsmanship has made it's impress upon
the brightest pages Of this states history.
The law grantIngs them such privilege
was passed upon the strongest pos
sibIe appeal and chiefly out of
two considerations: First, that large
soldier element in the United States who
had fought for Texas independence, were
by Sll the emotions of gratitude and
principles Of justice entitled to own lands
within her border. .. That her OWN pop
alton was too poor to supply sn i'm
poverished treasury, Or to pay large war
debt, or to buy and own the lands st g
fair price.
In those days the mere suggestion in
legislative councils to permit foreign
corporations to acquire vested sights IN
Texas lands would have been the signal
OF tempestuous indignation of the peo-
pie fred by the mutual voices Of incensed
patriots denouncing it as inimical and
poisonous to good government.
Strange but true our constitutions have
never spoken IN plain terms against
landed monopolies by this class Of cOrpo-
rations. By Implication those provisions
against perpetuities, ETC., may cover the
case. This however is not clear in the
absence of legislative declarations on the
subject.
II has been held that where there is
nothing to the contrary in the policy of
the state as declared by it's legislature, g
foreign corporation may purchase real
estate therein. 600 U. S. p 55) This
policy cannot however be inferred, but TO
prevent them from holding lands the pro-
hibition must be clear, positive and ex-
pressed IN some affirmative way. I0I
U. S. p. 352, 1856; 1O2-111 p 4G).
1t would hardly be reasonable, how
ever, that foreign corporations could SC
quire or maintain more than the ordinary
privileges OF domestic ones. Therefore
il domestic corporation could rot char
ter for the purpose OF purchasing aad
owning real estate in Texas the privilege
should also be denied foreign one.
Under Article sec, Section I, Revised
Statuteg, private corporations could be
formed for the purchase, location and
sub division of lands and the sale and
conveyance of the same in lots and sub
divisions or 9th, rwise. By amendment
OF this article in 1885 General Laws p
59), this section was omitted and
the right limited to the pur-.
chase, subdivision and sale OF land in
cities, towns and villages and this purpose
for which corporation could be chartered
was eXpunged from the statutes Of this
state by the last set on the subject Gen.
eral Laws 1887, Chapter 90, psge 40. So
that now there is no law IN Texas eX-
pressIy authorizing either foreign or
domestic corporations with such purpose
alone in view, to purchase, own or hoId9
lands in the state; but by clear implica-
ton fully justified by the Constitution
against perpetuities as well as by the gan
eral course of legislation touching the
subject the class OF corporations referred
to cannot lawfully purchase or own lands
IN this state, when such is its main pur-
pose OF Incorporation. At all events If
this construction is not correct, justified
and upheld the result is certain TO be most
disastrous to the natural citizens VINO
hope IN the future to own lands in Texas
that the Legislature by its act
Of 1887, chapter 128, did not intend to
in favor of foreign corpora
lions, or to admit that class of companies
whose organization and purpose both
oortend evil effects upon the policy Of the
state and are clearly repugnant to the
general interests OF the public, you are
advised in response to your first ques-
ton, not to file the charter OF the Mata-
dor Land and Cattle Company.
Grouping your other two questions to- |
yether you are respectfully advised: l.
That it was evidently the intention of the |
that for fling the certified |
copies of the charters referred to the act, +
he corporations obtaining the permit |
should pay the fees required of domestic |
for similar work. This you |
will fad regulated by the general laws |
If 1883, page 70. 2. That it
would not be proper for you to attempt |
% limit the purpose OF any corporation |
o which you may issue "permit." Re- |
use to issue to them any permit at all |
lnless the purposes OF their incorpora-
ion are consistent with the laws Of Texas |
domestic corporations.
While the point has not been directly |
aised by your questions, it is perhaps |
proper and quite advisable st this time |
o call your attention to the "unconsti- |
utionality" of the act under consIdera-
ion. Ordinarily this should be ap-
'rosched with much delicacy and be |
with no slight degree of en-
)arrassment; for when any officer or
member of coordinate department of |
he government disregsrds an act of the |
or declares it void, |
le assumes q most serious and
unpleasant responsibility. In this in
tance, however, timely, candid action is
Il the highest Importance to the general |
'ublic and should be taken before COM |
'licatiOns arise from the futile attempt to |
niorce this law. A Statute in almost the /
IDENTICAL language Of it was passed by the
owa Legislature, April 6, 1886. Com
Jared line with line from beginning to
nd there is no material difference be-
ween the two acts. In subject, in Ian
,uage, in objects, In duties imposed and
'enalties prescribed section by section
he similarity is 80 striking that the au-
hors OF the two must have been twins
n thought and duplicates in action. The
ows authorities sought to enforce their
aw. A test case was made and on wrif8
Il error 10 the Supreme court of the
United States it was there held thatsthe
sw was unconstitutional upon gthe |